CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

Dorstfontein Coal Mine is situated at the northern limb of the Highveld

Coalfield (Snyman, 1998). The close proximity of the Nebo Granite Suite
(S.A.C.S., 1980), which outcrops near the box-cut, to the No.2 Seam makes it
a very difficult mine to operate. The coal seam mimics the granite paleo­
topography and causes the seam conditions to vary extremely rapidly. Some
of the related problems are floor rolls and the sudden change in the coal seam
thickness. The mine has been in operation for four years during which time
the best parts of the ore body were exploited. The seam heights were in the
excess of 1.5 meters. In the north-western part of the mine the excessive
rolling floor prohibited production. In some areas of the mine the seam is split
into a thin (0.01 - 0.15m) upper and a thicker lower (1.2- 1.75m) seam by an
upwards coarsening sandstone parting. Currently some mining is taking place
below this seam-splitting parting where the seam height ranges between 1.5
and 1.75m. In other parts of the deposit very thin seam conditions prevail
below the parting with heights ranging between 1.2 and 1.4 meters. Hopefully
these very thin seam areas will be mined in the near future. In many countries
these heights are not be regarded as thin as the definition for thin seams is
any thickness between 0.6 and 1.0m (Clarke et a!., 1982). In this treatise a
thin seam will be regarded as a seam between 1.2 and 1.4m thick.

These thin seam areas were previously regarded as not mineable and omitted
from reserves. These areas contain very high-grade coal and have the
potential of adding another 6 years to the life of the mine. The aim of the study
is to determine whether these areas can be mined economically and
profitable.

1.1 Definitions and terms

Box-cut: A decline ramp intersecting the strata at an angle of ± 7° and

ending in the mineable coal seam.
Thin seam: A seam with a thickness between 1.2 and 1.4m.

12

 Parting: A competent layer of sandstone or siltstone in the coal seam

and sometimes separating different seams.
Pre-Karoo: All rocks older than Karoo age, that is older than ±320 Ma.
Proximate analysis: The most basic analysis for a coal sample and done on
an air dried basis: Moisture content, Ash content, Volatile
matter, Fixed Carbon content (Karr, 1978 and Meyers, 1981).
Raw coal: Not beneficiated, as mined.
R.O.M.: Run of mine, the material coming out of the mine. ± 50 -60%
of in situ reserve.
Seam: The coal horizon.
Strong roof: The horizon above the coal that forms a roof with strength in
the access of 60 MPa. It normally consists of a fine to
medium grained sandstone.
Wash fraction: The relative density or densities (R.D.) at which coal is
beneficiated. Listed in a washtable (Table 1). Can be any
R.D. between 1.0 and 2.7.

Table 1. Float fractions and qualities used in a washtable

Washtable: The quantitative values of each coal quality analyzed for, at a

specific R.D., listed in table form (Table 1).
Weak roof: any horizons that will break up or part during normal mining
activities.
Yield: The resultant tonnage when 1 ton of coal is washed at a
specific R.D., expressed as a percentage. For this study all

13

 yields quoted are theoretical yields i.e. no plant efficiency or

other losses were factored into the yield.

1.2 The problem and its settings

The areas of the thin seam coal resources are normally associated with
the seam-split parting. This parting divides the coal into a very thin upper
coal and a lower thicker coal. It is this lower coal that is of economic
importance and needs to be extracted. The following problems exist:
a.} The parting left to form the roof creates dangerous roof conditions and
reduces the mining heights to between 1,2 and 1,4 m. If the parting is
extracted, the heights increase but the yields of the thin seam coal
drop to uneconomical proportions. Stowing the parting underground is
an option but stone handling is costly and can cause injury.
b.) It is clear that the continuous miner (eM) mining method is the most
efficient to extract thin seam coal. Drill and blast methods need
reasonable heights and space and currently the equipment on the
mine is too high for the thin seam areas. Drill and blasting below the
parting causes it to break and separate which defeats the whole object
of excluding the sandstone from the R.O.M. The eM operation would
probably be more effective but the eM can not cut hard stone.
c.) Production rate. There is a production cutoff where the cost of the
tonnage mined exceeds the revenue received for the product. What is
the minimum tonnage that can be produced economically from thin
seam areas?
d.) Yield cutoff. Hand-in-hand with production rates goes the yield of the
extracted material. If the yield is to low, the production must be
increased to make up for the lost product coal. The parting must
remain up to increase the yield. What is the cutoff yield and how is it
affected by inclusion of the parting?
e.) Health and Safety. What are the safety implications if the parting is
kept up? How will personnel and machinery be able to work safely in

14

 the thin seam area? What are the new health and safety risks when
mining thin seam coal?
f.) Costs. How much will it cost to undertake thin seam mining? New thin
seam equipment will be introduced and tested below the parting.
What is the break-even point in production rate and costs?

1.3 Hypothesis

Current thick seam mining operations in similar conditions as thin seam

areas indicate that the theoretical yield falls from 85% to 65% when the
parting is included. This means that for every hundred tons mined, only
65 tons can be sold but the company still has to pay for hundred tons
mined. It is more economical to mine as much "clean" coal as possible.
The feeling is that in the thin seam areas the parting will have to stay up
and form the roof to increase the yields and to make this an economical
area. This mining method creates numerous problems regarding health
and safety and will lead to a decline in the production rate. The risks
have to be quantified and weighed up against the necessity to mine
these thin seam areas. In the end the decision to go ahead with thin
seam mining will be based on economical as well as health and safety
issues. It is postulated that mining the thin seam coal will be expensive
but profitable. The working conditions will change and workers will have
to become comfortable with their new working environment

1.4 Delimitations

1.4.1 Only thin seam areas have been assessed and evaluated.

1.4.2 The mine will be in operation for at least the next ten years.

1.4.3 This is not a complete feasibility study and only focuses on one
aspect of the geology namely the thin seam resource.

1.4.4 The current borehole spacing is 1 hole I 300m and all the
geological conditions have been modeled based on this spacing.

1.4.5 Very little information exists about other thin seam operations.

15

1.5 Assumptions
1.5.1 It is assumed that the entire infrastructure exists on the mine
surface and underground. This will just be an additional section at
the mine.

1.5.2 This study assumes that the geology has been well defined and
this is no attempt to revise the geological section of the feasibility
report of Dorstfontein Mine. The geological insert merely acts as
background for the reader with additional information about the thin
seam added, as gathered through the lifetime of the mine.

1.5.3 The study intends to change the long-term planning and

scheduling of the mine as it adds additional information and
creates the possibility of extending the life of the mine.

1.5.4 This study assumes that the current policy of I.C.S.A., to use
contractors for mining and to outsource all activities, will not
change in the future.

1.6 Research methodology

1.6.1 Current history of Dorstfontein mine. The past and current mining
problems and geological conditions will be reviewed.
1.6.2 Use of borehole information. Borehole core was used to study and
analyze the parting strengths and properties. The information
gathered from these reports and the analyses from coal sampling
were used in this study.
1.6.3 Geological model simulations. Use was made of the geological
data supplied by I.C.S.A. head office. The Minescape/Stratmodel
software was used to model coal qualities and seam heights.
1.6.4 The same software was used to determine the in-situ thin seam
coal resource.
1.6.5 The data gathered and analyzed was used to come to a
conclusion regarding the feasibility of extracting coal from thin
seam areas.

16

 CHAPrER2: REVIEW OF RELArED MArERIAL.

Very little information exists about thin seam coal mining. Contrary to this there
exist great volumes regarding coal mining and coal as a rock. These publications
are not relevant to the problem of thin seam mining, its methodology, products
and cost. The only relevant publication found is that of Clarke et ai, (1982): Thin
Seam Coal Mining Technology. Another very interesting but old book by Smyth:
Coal & Coal Mining was published in 1886. This book makes very interesting
reading about the mining methods, problems and history of the old British
collieries.

In the book of W. W. Smyth he refers to the startling observation made in 1860

that the British coal output had doubled in 20 years, from 65 million tons to 134.6
million tons per annum. The big concern of the day was the new technology of
using explosives to liberate coal at the face, which led to many fatalities and
injuries due to "blow-out" shots. One of the biggest concerns of the time was
underground explosions caused by gases and poor ventilation. It seems that the
greatest danger was the extinction of the miner's cap lamp flame during an
explosion leaving the underground workers without light. This resulted in many
miners being lost underground in the dark, as they could not find their way out.
This seems to be one of the earliest health and safety problems due to bad
lighting or no lights at all.

The relevant issues at the time (1885), which still hold for today's drill and blast
mining and of which some can be applied to continuous miner operations, are the
following: i.) adopting such methods that will produce the least dust, ii.) the
removal of such dust and prevention of it being carried down the downcast
ventilation system, iii.) watering where practical the places in which dust
accumulates and the sprinkling of common salt or other deliquescent material,
iv.) the avoidance of common concussions accompanied by much flame as
caused by "blown-out" shots and the careful examination for gas and clearing of
dust from the place where a shot is to be fired.

17

Smyth (1886) also describes the very primitive ways that were employed in the
1800s to liberate coal. The first procedure was to "hole" the coal by cutting a
groove two to three feet deep in the lowest part of the coal with a pick. For this
holing at the bottom of the seam the collier laid on his side and in an apparently
constrained attitude swung the pick almost horizontally. Some coal seams had
the advantage of being able to be holed in the middle, depending on the position
of the in-seam partings. The sides were cut vertically. called shearing. to form a
short block of coal that needed to be collapsed. The final breaking down or
"collapsing" of the seam was done by applying taper wedges a few feet apart and
driving them with heavy hammers. In some cases where the coal was more
resistant to collapsing. use was made of gunpowder. Later developments made
use of hand drills to drill holes into the coal seam and charged with gunpowder.
This method led to many injuries as proper tamping of holes did not exist and
gunpowder easily pre-ignites. It is also rendered useless when wet and
waterproof packaging did not exist at the time.

Bord and pillar mining layouts were the most common but longwall-mining did
exist. leaving nothing but goaf or gob behind. Support was installed by means of
timber props to uphold the overlying strata and in many cases where the heaviest
roof pressure was expected they used nogs and chocks instead of props. Coal
was removed from the face by dragging sledges. loaded with coal. along the
floor. In some of the more primitive mines the coal was loaded into baskets and
carried by woman bearers. The Germans were the first people to introduce
underground rails. The problems encountered with underground rails were their
frequent sinuosity and unevenness, confined space and the tendency to disturb
roof and floor. Special designed wagons were used to transport the coal up an
incline shaft. The various trolleys and tubs were either pulled by Shetland ponies
or pushed by boys. It is mentioned that where very thin seams were worked the
cost of carting the coal becomes very onerous (Smyth, 1886). In thin seams the
tubs or wagons must necessarily be low and the wheels small so that the total
weight is low in order for the onsetler and banksmen to easily pull or push the
trolley up the mostly incline shafts.

18

During the 1800's the fatality in British coal mines were between nine hundred
(900) and one thousand two hundred (1,200) people per year. The most common
cause of deaths and accidents were falls of roof, methane explosions due to poor
ventilation, shaft accidents and holing into old workings where methane and other
gases have accumulated as well as inrushes of water which were lying under
pressure in the old areas. The most feared substance and cause of fatalities in
the mines was so called firedamp better known today as methane.

A very interesting book and one used very extensively in this study is one on thin
seam coal mining technology and by Clarke et al. (1982). This is the only book
dealing exclusively with thin seam mining methods as most other publications
and books deal with coal and mining methods in general. It can also be
concluded that thin seam coal mining has become unfavourable due to its low
production rate and high cost and that the focus is more on high output (economy
of scales) from thicker coal seams. Clarke et a!. (1982) highlights the
occurrences of accidents in thin seams, various extraction methods and
equipment, health and safety issues, mine design and layout, costs and thin
seam resources, from mainly U.S.A based mines. This book was published in
1982 and covers mainly the mining in the 1960's and 1970s when coal prices
were high and costs exuberant. The mines sold low ash coal (12-16%) for $28.0
but mined that coal at $34.0-$40.0 per ton. They were and still are heavily
subsidized and many tax incentives were introduced to keep these mines open
so that small communities could survive.

Many lessons can be learned from the American thin seam collieries regarding
their mining methods, health and safety issues and mining costs. Real issues and
factual data was used from operating collieries within the U.S.A and compared to
other collieries in the former U.S.S.R., Colombia, Great Britain, and other
European countries. Many of the issues raised in this publication can be directly
implemented and applied to the Dorstfontein scenario. The risks involved are
pertinent to our current mining as well as to the proposed thin seam mining

19

areas. As very few mines are currently mining thin seam coal in the R.S.A.,
lessons must be learned from the past and be applied at Dorstfontein.

In Chapter 3 (Clarke et al., 1982) a comparison is made between the accident

analysis of thick seam and thin seam mining. The various kinds of accidents
mentioned are relevant to the current mining a Dorstfontein and will be used as
risks for the thin seam mining. Chapter 12 deals with productivity and the factors
affecting productivity. Although many of the statistics and data goes back to the
1960s and 1970s, it can be assumed that because of the mining conditions and
productivity with modern-day machines will not be dissimilar from those eras.
Many U.S.A. thin seam mines produced 20 000 tons per month per section from
24 inch (0.6m) high seams. In the conclusions it is quoted that there is a
correlation between seam thickness and labour productivity. There are also
countries where thin seam mines are very productive due to good geological
conditions such as competent and strong roofs and flat seams.

Chapter 13 (Clarke et aI., 1982) deals with costs and although costs in the 1960s
and 1970s cannot be compared to today's cost, one can come to a conclusion
about the exorbitant costs of thin seam mining. It is interesting however that the
selling price of high quality coal in dollar terms in 1977 is the same as today but
decreased in terms of inflation adjusted figures. The main reason for this is that
the highest quality coal occurs in thin seams and is well sought after because of
the low sulphur and ash content. This is the same quality coal produced at
Dorstfontein Mine. Chapter 14 covers the health and safety environment and
gives a very good inSight into conditions that could be expected when entering
the thin seam areas. Up to now at Dorstfontein seam heights (all above 1.5m)
comparable to that mined in the U.S.A (between 0.6 and 0.75m) have not been
encountered. In Chapter 15 the authors deal with the various mining systems and
methods and give one inSight into the various methods employed in thin seam
coal winning. Chapter 19 discusses the output and productivity of various mining
methods. At Dorstfontein the mining methods are fixed, in the sense that bord
and pillar layout applies, continuous miner machines are being used and that the

20

necessary equipment for thin seam extraction has already been bought or current
equipment adapted. Chapter 20 deals with the costs involved in thin seam
mining. It appears that labour cost forms the greatest component in the U.S.A.
but in the R.S.A. the possibility exists that the capital costs will form the greatest
component due to the volatile exchange rate. The financial sensitivities involved
in thin seam mining and their effect on production and cost are discussed in
Chapter 22. Extracts from this publication have been used to design the financial
model. assess the risks and the sensitivities. It provides a general background on
the various thin seam mining methods used in the U.S.A. and other parts of the
world.

Very little information exists in the R.S.A. about previous mining of thin seams in
KwaZulu-Natal. Spurr et al. (1986) published a few papers on the general
geology of the Vryheid and Utrecht coalfields. its qualities and tonnages. Most of
the mining problems. production rates and costs are kept in in-house reports and
are not available to the public.

Jacobs (1989) identified the relationship between geological conditions and

mining problems at Ermelo Mines. but the problems of the thin seam areas here
differ distinctly from Dorstfontein as they encountered bad roof conditions. which
do not occur at Dorstfontein as frequently as they did at Ermelo Mines.

This document would therefore appear to be one of the few documenting the
potential mining of thin seam coal resources in South Africa. This is a radical
opinion since thin seam coal mining has become unfavourable due to its high
costs and low production rates. It is the opinion of the author however, that this
view will change as thick coal seam resources are being depleted and the need
for additional coal resources will necessitates the reinvestigation of thin seam
deposits. The findings relevant to the Dorstfontein deposit may have far reaching
consequences in other mining areas as it may result in substantial increases in
available resourcess.

21

I Ib0J..')..U~S

b\v.J9 UUW ~/1

 CHAPTER 3: GEOLOGY OF THE NO.2 THIN SEAM.

3.1 Introduction

Extracts from a 1999 AngloVaal Minerals geological report by Stewardson and

Saunderson have been used for this chapter. A few amendments have been
made based on additional information that has become available from recent
drilling programmes. Underground mapping and recording of mining problems
have added to this information, which has been reconciled with the borehole
data.

The term "reserve" used in this study complies with the SAMREC code
(SAMREC, 2000) as this thin seam area has been included in the approved
Environmental Management Programme Report (EMPR) and the mining
permission area. The necessary extraction rates are known, the market exists
and all the other elements of the definition have been met. The thin seam was
not regarded as mineable due to practical reasons like the non-existence of
modem high productive equipment.

3.1.1 General
Dorstfontein Coal Mine falls within the Highveld Coalfield and is
situated 4 km east of the town of Kriel and 25 km northwest of Bethal.
(Fig. 3.1) Adjacent collieries include the defunct Ingwe operated
Transvaal Navigation Colliery (TNC) , the current Xstrata Mines of
Arthur Taylor Colliery (ATC) and Arthur Taylor Colliery Open Cast Mine
(ATCOM) which are 15 km to the north, the Anglo Coal operated Kriel
Mine and Eyesizwe operated Matla Colliery, about 10 km west
(Snyman, 1998 and Baker, 1999). Only Matla and Kriel Collieries are
also in the Highveld Coalfield while the other neighbours fall inside the
Witbank Coalfield. Other mines in the Highveld Coalfield (Fig. 3.2.) are
the SASOL owned Secunda Collieries (Brandspruit, Twistdraai,
Syferfontein and Bosjesspruit) at Secunda, the Anglo Coal owned New

22

Denmark Colliery near Standerton and the Total Exploration SA owned

Forzando Colliery near Hendrina (Jordaan, 1986 and Barker, 1999).

Various studies were conducted to determine the local and regional

stratigraphy as well as the depositional environment of the Highveld
Coalfield (Winter et at, 1987). The area studied by Winter et al. in 1987
was seen as part of the Highveld Coalfield at the time but is currently
viewed as the western part of the Witbank Coalfield (Snyman, 1998).
The seam correlations and depositional environment are similar to the
Highveld Coalfield and may still be used for research. Other
researchers have done some work in various parts of the Highveld
Coalfield since 1928 and include names like Wybergh, W.J. in 1928,
Venter, F.A in 1934. Stanistreet, LG. et al. in 1980, Smith, D.AM. in
1970, Cadle, AB. and Hobday, D.R. in 1977 (Jordaan, 1986).

T.C.S.A owns all the coal rights over the farms Dorstfontein 71 IS,
Welstand 551S. Fentonia 541S and Boschkrans 531S (Fig. 3.3)
(Stewardson and Saunderson. 1999). Mining is currently taking place
on the farm Dorstfontein 711S where a high-grade coal, suitable for
export and metallurgical applications, is extracted. The study only
deals with the very thin seam coal area (heights between 1.2 and
1.4m) at Dorstfontein 711S. which was until recently been regarded as
un-mineable and thus exduded from reserves.

23

3.1.2 Topography and land usage

The topography is gently undulating (Fig. 3.4) with a few small
tributaries of the Steenkoolspruit draining the property. The previous
farmer or owner constructed a few farm dams on the property. The
T.C.S.A. owned surface is currently being rented out to farmers who
use it for maize cultivation and grazing. The property is sparsely
populated by a few farm workers staying in workers huts (Stewardson
and Saunderson, 1999). The use of bord and pillar mining methods
and the properly designed pillars, prevent surface subsidence. In
terms of sustainable development objectives, the surface should be
retumed to its original use for agriculture as minimal negative impacts
on the surface was done by mining.

3.1.3 Mineral Rights

T.C.S.A. owns all of the mineral rights in the mining lease area
(Stewardson and Saunderson, 1999). These rights were acquired by
AngloVaal Minerals in the 1980s and 1990s and transferred to
T.C.S.A. with the selling of Dorstfontein in 1999. Adjacent mineral
rights owners are:
• Anglo Coal Pic and
• Mr. N.E. Hirschowitz

27

3.2 Exploration
Since the early 1960's up to 1999 a total of 174 holes were drilled in the then
Dorstfontein resource area of which 19 holes were angled holes to confirm
dolerite dyke positions (Fig. 3.4) (Stewardson and Saunderson, 1999).
Subsequently another 64 holes were drilled in the reserve area since mining
started in 1999.

Anglo American Corporation carned out the earliest exploration in the mid­
1960s. Between 1974 and 1975, South Cape Exploration (pty) Ltd drilled 47
holes on Dorstfontein. A further 43 holes were drilled by Sun Mining and
Prospecting during the period 1975 to 1978 (Stewardson and Saunderson,
1999). These holes had limited washability data for the No. 2 Seam as only
the No. 4 Seam was prospected for (see Stratigraphical Log, Fig. 3.5). In
some cases only proximate analysis were performed on raw coal from the No.
2 Seam. All of the prospecting companies cancelled their optioning
agreements and prospecting rights as the No.4 Seam is of inferior quality and
regarded as uneconomical. Options were taken out by AngloVaal Minerals
when they considered the No. 2 Seam as mineable. This company drilled
another 60 boreholes between 1980 and 1982 with a further 105 holes
between 1996 and 1998. All AngloVaal Minerals' boreholes and subsequent
I.C.S.A. holes were analyzed at 10 density fractions to get a better
understanding of the washability of the coal.

In 1995 a helicopter-bome high resolution aeromagnetic survey was

conducted to define magnetic dykes (Stewardson and Saunderson, 1999).
Some anomalies were confirmed by drilling angled holes and by ground
magnetometry. In 1997 a helicopter-borne EM survey was carried out to
define some non-magnetic dykes. Anomalies were identified and angled
boreholes drilled which confirmed some of these anomalies to be dolerite
dykes (Stewardson and Saunderson, 1999). Most of the major dolerite dykes
in the mining area were correctly predicted and very few surprises were
encountered during mining. Only a few thin dolerite dykes/stringers were

29

 intersected during mining and a few situations the positions of the major dykes
were out by not more than 25 meters.

3.3 Stratigraphy
The Pre-Karoo basement rocks consist of granite of the Nebo Granite
Suite of the Bushveld Complex and in a few places Transvaal shales and
sandstones (SACS, 1980). The granite outcrops close to the box-cut
position and defines the northem mining reserve boundary. The
basement is overlain unconformably by diamictites and associated· glacial
sediments of Dwyka age (Winter et aI., 1987). These in turn are
conformably overlain by sediments of the Vryheid Formation that
comprise of a series of stacked upwards-coarsening sequences of
siltstone and sandstone. Each sequence is capped by a coal seam (Fig.
3.5).

Five major seams are present and numbered from the base upwards as
Seams No. 1 to 5 (Snyman, 1998 and De Jager, 1976). Thickness and
distribution of the seams were controlled by paleotopography as well as
pre- and syndepositional events (Winter et aI., 1987). The best developed
and most extensive seam is the No. 4 Seam which reaches maximum
thicknesses of up to seven meters. Unfortunately this coal has a very low
yield for export products and the calorific value and volatile matter of the
seam renders it only suitable for use as steam coal. Currently an
oversupply of this type of coal exists but there is always the possibility that
some market might become available in the future. The No. 5 Seam is
developed only in the topographically elevated areas and the negative
experience of other No. 5 Seam producers discourages any mining of this
seam. The No. 1 Seam is only locally developed in a small palaeo-valley
in the northeast of the mining reserve. It is of inferior quality and
uneconomical. The NO.3 Seam is very localized and thin and occurs only
in a few places in the deposit. Currently the No. 2 Seam is the only

30

economic viable seam in the deposit and a detailed description is to follow

(Fig. 3.6).

Late Jurassic time dolerite intrusions, which coincided with the Gondwana
breakup, have resulted in some areas of burnt and or devolatilised coal
(Jordaan, 1986). The migration of dolerite sills to different stratigraphical
levels had resulted in seam displacement but had only a limited effect on
the No. 2 Seam reserve area. The eastern mining reserve boundary has
been defined using such a migrating sill as reserve limit (Stewardson and
Saunderson, 1999).

31

1575 1575

1550 1550

1525 1525

1500 SA 1500

1475
'--­
-­
SA

1475
1470 1470
2902300N 2903000 2903500 2904000 2904500 2905000 2905500 2905750N

-29000E -29000E
1591 1591
DF198
o Of137
1575 DSi 1575

1550 1550

1525 1525

1500 1500

~------'--
i»,________ --- --- --­ -­ _­ ____
1475

1460
----­ 2905500 2905800N
1460
1475

2902600N 2903000 2903500 2904000 2904500 2905000

Fig. 3.6. North-South CIOSHeCtion of the~tfontein Deposit (after Bartkowiak; 2001).

"
3.4 No.2 Seam and No.2 Lower Seam
The palaeo-basement geometry determined the geometry and thickness of the
No.2 Seam (Fig. 3.6 and 3.7). The rate at which the surface subsided during
peat accumulation controlled the thickness and character of the coal. Height
variations can be attributed to pre- and syndepositional geological events
(Stewardson and Saunderson, 1999).

3.4.1 Seam splitting

The single coal seam in the north is split into an upper and lower seam in the
south by a persistent sandstone parting (Fig. 3.7 & 3.8). The parting is
positioned towards the top of the seam and ranges from 0.0 to 0.75m in
thickness. The No.2 Upper Seam is thin (0.01 to 0.35m thick) and only the No.
2 Lower Seam forms an economic unit. In the No.2 Thin Seam area the parting
is thick and as only 0.3m is enough to form a safe beam, this parting will form a
proper roof for the lower, mineable part of the No. 2 Seam (Spengler, pers.
comm., 2002).

3.4.2 Seam Elevation

The elevation of the base of the No. 2 Thin Seam ranges from the 1511 to
1518m AMSL (Fig. 3.9). The seam topography reflects the Pre-Karoo relief with
the seam dipping gently from east to west towards a north-south trending
paleovalley. The overall regional dip of the seam is from north to south, that is
from the granite outcrop towards the depositional basin. In the study area the
coal seam is flat with a barely noticeable dip towards the south.

3.4.3 Seam Thickness

The total thickness of the No.2 Seam, including the parting, is illustrated in
Fig. 3.10. The central area of maximum thickness reflects the zone of maximum
parting thickness. In the study area the seam thickness below the parting
ranges from 1.2 to 1.4m (Fig. 3.11).

In the area where the seam splitting occurs, the No. 2 Upper Seam is
developed and ranges in thickness from 0.01 to 0.35m. There is no correlation

34

between the No. 2 Upper Seam thickness and the underlying parting thickness.
The clean, well-sorted sandstone that overlies the No. 2 Upper Seam has
generally a thin, silty zone at its base. This suggests disturbance of the peat
surface during transgression. The absence of rip-up clasts indicates little or no
erosion of the seam (Stewardson and Saunderson, 1999).

3.4.4 Main Parting

The parting thickness ranges from 0.0 to 0.75m with its maximum thickness in
an east-west linear zone (Fig. 3.8). The parting consists of an upwards­
coarsening sequence grading from lenticular-laminated siltstone through
interlaminated sandstone-siltstone to cross-laminated sandstone at the top.
The lithology and geometry suggested a crevasse splay deposit, which
emanated from a channel system in the east of the reserve area (Stewardson
and Saunderson, 1999).

Mechanical strength tests were done on core from the 2002-drilling programme
(Spengler, 2002). The results indicated that the parting is competent and will
not collapse during mining and that it will form a safe beam jf bolted with full
column resin roofbolts. The only provision is that the mining method below the
parting should not be the conventional drill and blast methods but preferably
mechanical continuous mining methods. Mechanical mining methods cause
the least disturbance and possible separation of the laminated strata, which
could result in the beam thinning to dangerous proportions. In Chapter 7 there
is a detailed discussion on the testing of the parting and instructed support
pattern.

35

 3.4.5 Seam Roof

The purpose of this study is to determine the result and affect if the seam-split
parting forms the roof in the study area. However, it would be necessary to do
roof stripping (parting) in the belt road and main travel roads to increase heights
for the people and vehicles to move. The stripping, normally done to a height of
1.8m, will expose the overlying fine grained, homogeneous, clean and well­
sorted sandstone unit, which currently forms the roof. This unit is mostly
unbedded and lack silty laminae. Occasional occurrences of bioturbation and
cross trough bedding are developed. These occurrences do not have any
negative effects on overall rock strength (Stewardson and Saunderson, 1999).
All roof rock (parting) will be mined as a second cut and be stowed
underground to prevent contamination of the mined coal.

3.4.6 Seam Floor

Competent, medium grained sandstone underlies the seam. The sandstone
floor forms the final depositional stage of a prograding delta platform upon
which the coal seam developed (Stewardson and Saunderson, 1999). In
currently mined areas and old workings, the floor is still competent and did not
scale or break-up during vehicle movements. It is expected to behave the same
in the thin seam areas.

3.5 Dolerite Intrusions

MagnetiC and non-magnetic dykes as well as magnetic dolerite sills occur (Fig.
3.12). These were detected using both geophysical surveys and borehole
intersections (Stewardson and Saunderson, 1999). In the study area and the
current reserve, dolerite sills do not underlie the mineable seam. In the east of
the current reserve a dolerite sill cuts vertically across the strata to outcrop on
surface. It underlies the No. 2 Seam in the east, displaces the seam upwards
the same distance as the dolerite thickness and thus renders the coal
inaccessible and unmineable due to this discontinuity. This position of the sill

41

transgression was used to define the eastern boundary of the current mineable
reserve.

In the south of the study area a major magnetic dyke was identified using an
aeromagnetic survey. It trends more or less east - west and is near vertical.
Mining through this dyke has proved its thickness to be 2.8m at the locality it
was intersected.

In the western part of the study area, 3 dykes occur. Mining confirmed their
positions during a southern development towards higher seam areas, the so
called South Main area. All of these dykes were relatively thin ( < 2 m thick)
and had no serious effect on the coal seam. It is concluded that these dykes
should not pose any serious problem for mining the thin seam area.

42

To conclude: the thin seam resource consists of 7.06 mil. tons in-situ coal of the
same quality as the current mining reserve. By factoring in an extraction rate of
70% and a geological and mining loss of 10% each, the recoverable (run of
mine) tons comes to 3.56 mil. tons. By applying the product yield at a 13.5%
ash content (yield = 95.7%) the product tons are 3.41 mil. tons and by applying
the yield at RO=1.6 (yield = 89.2%), the product tons are 3.18 mil. tons.

3.6.2 Thin seam resource limits

The main study area is defined by the 1.2 to 1.4 m seam height contour line
(Fig. 3.14). A mined-out area forms the northem boundary, while a sill
transgression line defines the eastem boundary. There will no other restrictions
placed on defining the resource area.

46

3.7 Seam Quality

3.7.1 General

For the geological study of 1999, coal quality values were quoted as at
RD.=1.6 on an air-dried basis (Stewardson and Saunderson, 1999). At this
wash fraction the mine was viable and the coal could be economically
exploited. The quality parameters normally quoted are: Yield, Calorific Value
(CV), Ash %, Moisture Content %, Volatile Matter % (Vols), Fixed Carbon %
(FC), Sulphur % (S) and Phosphorous % (P). In practice it has been found that
it is more practical to wash the coal to achieve 13.5% ash content (Air dry). The
market also readily accepted this quality as little change was brought upon the
volatile matter and calorific value. Therefore all current qualities are quoted as
for an ash content of 13.5%. In the study area the ash content is 11.6% at a
RD. = 1.6. The direct effect of an increase in ash content is an increase in
yield. Therefore, in the study area the average yield of 89.2% at RD. = 1.6
has gone up by 6.5 percentage points to 95.7% at an ash content of 13.5%.
This relates to an increase of approximately 2100 tons per month more of
saleable coal from the thin seam area alone.

3.7.2 Qualities
Coal and Mineral Technologies, a subsidiary of the SASS, did all resent
analysis according to the ISO 1928 standards (The South African Coal
Processing Society, 2002). Various other laboratories were used in the
past but most of them have dosed. Analysis from some of the older
borehole data could be used but many of the older holes did not intersect
the No. 2 Seam. Since AngloVaal Minerals drilled a 500m grid and
loC.S.A dosed the grid to 250m, enough borehole information exists to
confidently predict the coal qualities and tonnage for the thin seam area.

48

Some of the more important qualities for the thin seam coal are briefly
discussed. For Fixed Carbon and Moisture Content, see the details
tabulated in Table 4.

3.7.2.1 Yield
The theoretical yield for the thin seam area is 95.7% at an ash
content of 13.5% (RD. =1.99) and 89.2% at a R.D. =1.6 (air
dry).
3.7.2.2 Calorific Value
The CV in the study area is 28.31 MJ/kg at a R.D. =1.6 and
27.21 MJ/kg at an ash content of 13.5% (air dry).
3.7.2.3 Volatile Matter
The volatile matter at RD. =1.6 is 26.52% and 26.15% at an
ash value of 13.5% (air dry), showing very little difference
between the two products.
3.7.2.4 Sulphur
It was initially perceived that Dorstfontein had a sulphur problem
but the markets steadily accepted slightly higher sulphur values
so that the mine is currently meeting all the product
specifications. Most of the resource area has an average
sulphur content of 0.42% at the RD. =1.6 float fraction. At an
ash of 13.5% the average sulphur content is 0.79% and in
some mining blocks it can go as high as 1.25% because of the
free pyrite occupying the deats. Because of this, the current
beneficiation practice to wash to an ash content of 13.5% will
not be suitable to produce low sulphur coal. The wash density
will have to be reduced to a suitable fraction of between 1.6 and
1.8 to make a low ash and low sulphur product.
3.7.2.5 Phosphorus
The phosphorus content of the entire deposit is below 0.010%.
This low value makes the Dorstfontein coal well sought after as
a product used in the metallurgical industry.

49

 3.7.3 Additional8nalysis
No additional analyses were done on core from boreholes in the study
area. It is recommended that the following additional analysis be done
for future market requirements (The South African Coal Processing
Society, 2002):
• Ultimate Analysis: Carbon, Hydrogen, Nitrogen, and Oxygen.

• Full Ash Analysis: Si02, Al20 3, Fe203. Ti02• CaO, K20, S03.
P205, MgO, Na20.
• Ash Fusion Temperatures.
• Hardgrove Grindability and Abrasiveness
• Forms of Silica.
• Forms of Sulphur.
• Swell and Coking Properties.

It should therefore be concluded that based on the continuity of the No. 2 Seam and
the consistency of the seam quality, that a product meeting the market specifications
could be produced from the No.2 Seam thin area.

50